Talk:Henry IX of Britain (In the Presence of Mine Enemies)
Now how would Mosley have gone about restoring Edward VIII? Parliament can't force a king to abdicate once he's been duly crowned. Edward chose to do so; if he'd insisted on staying in Buckingham Palace, there was nothing anyone could do except declare his children products of a morganic marriage, but that would mean nothing until his death. Then they and their fellow Parliaments in the Commonwealth could declare Elizabeth the rightful Queen (George VI predeceased Edward by quite a lot); but once a crown is given, it is the wearer's by right for as long as he lives. Maybe in ItPoME they waited for George to die and then restored Edward to the throne? Not sure how the fact that he had abdicated willingly would change that, maybe they'd need to crown his son instead. :Or the Germans could have just said "Edward's king or else". TR ::They would have had to coerce the King directly into abdicating, and coerced Parliament directly into ignoring the line of succession. And they would have needed the Parliaments of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa to do the same. I suppose the Japanese may have been able to arrange the first two, unless they coerced those Parliaments into withdrawing from the Commonwealth altogether and naming Hirohito head of state. That seems likelier; they had no reason to love Edward VIII. Did the Germans control South Africa at that point? You'd know better than I would. But they didn't have any handle on Ottawa, or the US wouldn't've been isolationist. As I recall, if the Canadian Parliament neither recognized the new king nor withdrew from the Commonwealth, he would not have been allowed to take the throne. Turtle Fan 23:59, September 27, 2009 (UTC) He did have a son, didn't he? I thought he had but I'm having no luck hunting down the record. I remember hearing that his descendants were planning to go on a whirlwind tour of London, Ottawa, Canberra and Wellington demanding the crowns for themselves if, upon the death of Elizabeth, Charles is granted rites of succession. However, I've since learned much more about how these things work and the claim they'd be making is complete and utter bullshit, so maybe the story itself was the same. Turtle Fan 04:46, September 27, 2009 (UTC) :Everything I'm looking at says no children. TR 23:25, September 27, 2009 (UTC) ::Yes I'm rapidly coming to that conclusion myself. I guess the challenge to Charles's rite of succession was all bullshit. I wish I could remember where I had heard that. ::A morganic marriage which produced no issue--It really does seem like much ado about nothing, doesn't it? Turtle Fan 23:27, September 27, 2009 (UTC) :::It does. Indeed, given how ridiculous Edward often seems in hindsight, I wonder if Parliament's frustration was less about the affair and more about how terrible a king they felt Edward was. TR 23:41, September 27, 2009 (UTC) ::::Elizabeth's younger sister was considered scandalous in her time, though next to Elizabeth's kids she seems downright quaint. Many Brits were terribly embarrassed by that generation's bad behavior, to the point that support for the monarchy--terribly expensive to maintain--was significantly eroded. The Brits seem to be rallying around their rulers once again since Diana died and is no longer around to be insulted by Charles's antics, and they seem to be looking the other way on Harry's goofiness, which he's done a pretty good job of checking these last few years anyway. Maybe he's growing up. ::::Point is, Brits of this era feel democratic enough to express outrage at disgraceful monarchical behavior, if it's disgraceful enough for them to get excited about at all. I'm much less sure that would have been true in the interwar period. Turtle Fan 23:59, September 27, 2009 (UTC) On another note, if Edward VIII did indeed childless, upon his death Elizabeth II would have been next in line. Doesn't that seem to lend strength to the idea that Henry IX may indeed be Prince Harry after all? Granted, the fact that it's 2009 now and Elizabeth, Charles, and William are all still alive and eligible does seem to cancel that out a bit. Turtle Fan 23:59, September 27, 2009 (UTC) :::::Nothing requires Edward remain childless (or for that matter that Edward regained the throne-I've always just assumed that because it is an idea consistent with HT's thinking). There just isn't enough information in ItPoME about the subject to officially presume much of anything. ::::::Perhaps it would be best to remove any reference to him as a historical or fictional character, and simply describe his role in the story without comment. We might want to do the same with Jeb Stuart III. :::::I'd like to add that I find it hard to imagine that, if HT were just pulling a king's name out of his ass, he would choose one that could generate this question. When he wrote he knew that Harry was alive, was almost certain to be alive in 2009 (no problem there), was very close to the throne in the line of succession, and would make all but the most obtuse readers at least consider the question. This is especially strange in a novel in which he bent over backwards to obscure the names of contemporary figures like Waldheim and Blair. ::::::It's especially unfortunate since ItPoME came out right around the time Harry was heiling his way through a costume party. Of course, he was just following orders. ::::::If he'd just dubbed his king by some other name, this would all be so much simpler. Call him Edward IX, or Edward X--That wouldn't conclusively prove that the (nonexistent) Edwardian line had been restored, but it would imply that very well. I believe Elizabeth's third son is Edward, but no one would be likely to think of that. Turtle Fan 00:21, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::::It's also worth noting that the Italian monarch, Umberto, doesn't appear as if he should exist either. The current would-be heir is named Victor Emmanuel. TR 00:08, September 28, 2009 (UTC) Oh, and by the way I'm told that if Charles and Camilla were to produce issue, neither they nor their line would ever be eligible for royal titles beyond generic principalities or lordships. Of course, at their age that's not much better than a one in a million shot, anyway. Turtle Fan 00:21, September 28, 2009 (UTC) I've read about the royals and foudn someone who's a potential Henry IX. His name is David Henry George, 8th Earl of Harewood. His grandmother was Mary, Princess Royal, sister to Edward VIII and George VI. Mary and Edward were pretty close, and with a little tweaking of the sucession line with the help of mosley, Edward could make Mary and her decsendants monarchs after hsi death. The only problems is David's father would have to die earlier (he only died on monday) and he's a little old-61 to be exact. But they never say anything about the age of Henry. A Wikia Contributor 16.13, July 13, 2011 (UTC) :Could be. I guess it's worth remembering that Henry's reginal name didn't need to be his actual Christian name. George VI was Albert, after all. And Edward VIII was Edward, but everyone called him David. As for whether or not he could be the guy, well, as I said above, HT gave us Umberto, but the current living heir is Victor Emanuel. :We probably should remember that the fighting in England was bloody for several decades, so we could just be overanalyzing this--Henry could be some fictional character with antenuated ties to any known historical figures. TR 16:29, July 13, 2011 (UTC) :Why would Harewood's father still being alive until this week present an issue to this guy becoming Henry IX? The mother (Mary III in this pretty plausible situation) is the one through whom the crown would be inherited. Harewood's father would be Prince Consort for as long as his wife was Queen and then would be . . . I don't know, what is the title in this situation? Prince Father? If the current Queen predeceases the Duke of Edinburgh, Charles will become king and Philip . . . will answer the question I just posed above. :The problem is that by this point in history changes to the order of succession would require not only an Act of the British Parliament, which the BUF could obtain, but Acts of the Canadian, Australian, New Zealander and South African Parliaments as well. All those countries wound up occupied by the Axis sooner or later so we could smooth over that if we had to. Turtle Fan 18:48, July 13, 2011 (UTC) Jacobites Having just discussed the Jacobites elsewhere, I thought it would be interesting to point out that the last Jacobite pretender who actually claimed the thronefor himself was, or would have been, Henry IX. He was a poor man and George III tried to buy his silence by awarding him a pension. He took the money but did not drop the claim, and surprisingly, one of Britain's most arbitrary and autocratic kings (post Civil War, anyway) kept paying him until his 1807 death despite his non-compliance. So while we still don't know where this jerk came from, he's no Jacobite. The Nazis bringing back the Kings Over the Water is one of those bizarre AH concepts that actually has a sort of low-probability potential, however. Since 1919 the line of Jacobite pretenders has rested with the Wittelsbachs, not that they've ever cared. The Wittelsbachs are obviously German, and were Wilhelm I's most important allies during unification, so it's a name to conjure with among German nationalists, and especially among the aristocrats whose support Hitler so badly wanted to obtain at first. The House was staunchly anti-Hitlerite and its scions spent the war years in exile, moving all over the place in an effort to stay one step ahead of Axis expansion in central Europe. Once they were left with nowhere to run, however, it's onceivable they'd have eventually reached an accomodation. Maybe not; they did a few months in Dachau when Hitler started occupying in Hungary and finally caught up with them, but by then he was far too desperate to suppress his mean streak, and Prince Rupert knew it wouldn't be too long before the Allies came to the rescue. In ItPoME, a very different situation would have faced him. Now, why would Hitler put Buckingham Palace in their hands? George would have died before investing his confidence in a BUF government, and though Elizabeth's youth may have left her susceptible to SS coercion, I wouldn't count on it. As you know, I've never been too keen on the conventional wisdom that he was keeping Edward in his back pocket. The once and future king was pathetically unpopular and collaboration would have certainly made him even more so. It was sure to backfire. Plus the questionable fertility might have just brought Elizabeth back into the picture. (There's always the possibility of a new Act of Succession excluding George's line. Incidentally, then the heir presumptive, if he took the job, would also give us a Henry IX before this Henry could have succeeded.) A common feature of dystopia fascist Britain stories (not necessarily Axis victory AH specifically) is the United Republic. There's still not much to compel Hitler to send Rupert or Albert or Franz to London even if they were willing. However, imagine the Scottish Highlands as a hotbed of resistance; the geography, demography, and politics make this likely. It's a running sore on the Axis's flank as they try to consolidate power in Eastern Europe, and it's not that hard for the US Navy to reach. Allowing it to drag on weakens the BUF throughout the country, and eradicating the whole region is easier said than done. Winning influential Highlander friends is desirable, but there's not all that much they have to offer. There are a handful of clans that never did give up the Jacobite cause, though, so it might be worth a try. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:30, February 14, 2013 (UTC) :If history has taught us anything, it's that there is always going to be someone who is willing to pretend to rule in Hell, rather than just simply reside there. (For an HT example, see Stanley Owana Laanui.) The Nazis were pretty good at finding such people (they weren't always popular, but they did the job). ::True. I can't help thinking that bumping up someone from the fortieth or fiftieth spot in the line of succession is so obviously an ass-pull that it defeats the purpose of trying to co-opt the monarchy at all. Mosley and his successors were going to do the heavy lifting; the point to installing King Quisling is to paint them with a veneer of legitimacy going deep into British history. If the King doesn't have that air of legitimacy himself, why bother? Turtle Fan (talk) 21:27, February 14, 2013 (UTC) :So while you've made some pretty cogent points about various people who would or would not rule, the next question would be: yeah, but would there father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate be ok with ruling? Because that might be close enough for the Nazis. ::Sure, sure. Hell, that's why there are Jacobites at all, and what brought the Hanovers to the throne after the Act of Settlement, when they couldn't find a Protestant Stuart. More than fifty Catholic royals were passed over before they found George I. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:27, February 14, 2013 (UTC) ::By the way, when I untangled your follow-up question, I realized that my father's brother's nephew's cousin is . . . me. Well, I'm one possible holder of that distinction, anyway. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:27, February 14, 2013 (UTC) :Alternatively, given the circumstances being faced, an otherwise virulent anti-Nazi might realize that, even as a puppet monarch, s/he would be in the position to tend to their people and would be far more benevolent than an ardent Nazi-supporter. ::Here I'm not sure, not in the case of the UK monarchy. By 1939 the constitution gave the monarch very little political influence, and certainly a government of Nazi collaborators would leave him or her with less still. Commander-in-chief of the armed forces would surely be the first thing to go. So there'd be nothing to do but rubber-stamp the BUF. Maybe they could, upon Parliament passing the most outrageous bill yet, refuse royal assent, risk imprisonment or execution, and hope their martyrdom would inspire a new spirit of resistance. That's all I can think of. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:27, February 14, 2013 (UTC) :There are also other families than just the Windsors and the Jacobites with claims to the throne that could give the illusion of legitimacy. Philip II was planning on using Isabella because of some tangential connection she had to the Lancasters. HT certainly had that in mind at one point. (In keeping with current events: With the recent ID of Richard III, I was surprised to learn that there are still some Yorks around.) ::Oh yeah? As I recall, Henry VIII made a point of eradicating them as he became increasingly arbitrary. The trials of the Duke of Buckingham and the Countess of Salisbury were decried as farces even by the standards of the time. The latter's son, Reginald Pole, survived by taking asylum in France and the Papal States, then returned to England during Mary I's reign, and died there the same year she did. He was depressed and paranoid, mainly because he hadn't been able to save his family and because English agents really were after him respectively, but also because he was certain he was the absolute, unequivocal last of his line. ::Then again, just because he thought he was the last of his line doesn't mean he was. Some years ago there was a story on the local news about someone who died with no heir, and then a probate lawyer dug up a twelfth cousin, who of course had never heard of him. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:27, February 14, 2013 (UTC) :Another factor to consider is that from what we know, the UK was in pretty rebellious state from the initial invasion until the last rebellion was utterly crushed in the 1970s. The tremendous loss of life could have easily included most of the Royal Family (George, his wife and kids, his brothers--hell, given the use of USSR parallels, a mass execution a la the Romanovs seems like something HT would do). Based on the behavior of the various Londonites who appear in the book, the Brits were probably so defeated that they would have accepted just about any monarch the Nazis foisted upon them. There's also the question of how much the Third World War might have played a role. We don't have reason to think the U.S. targeted the U.K., but certainly the U.K. would be a place to launch ICBMs from. IN any case, fallout does get around. :So, in other words, Henry IX is probably a fictional character without any real OTL analog, and may even have the barest connection to any logical OTL family or figure. Or no connection whatsoever. TR (talk) 16:54, February 14, 2013 (UTC) ::Oh I wasn't suggesting this Henry IX is a Jacobite; in fact, he couldn't be, because the Jacobites had already had a Henry IX two hundred years earlier. If anything he'd have to be Henry X. I was just trying to spitball a scenario that caught my imagination after I learned a few stray facts and subconsciously wove them together through some mental association. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:27, February 14, 2013 (UTC) Minor character Recent reformats in the Crosstime Traffic and Two Georges lists have established that it's okay for kings to be in the MFCs. In my mind, there's no way Henry IX could be Prince Harry, as the Elizabeth-Philip and Charles-Di unions couldn't withstand all the butterflies flapping in ItPoME-land. Nor this is there any reason to suppose he's any historical character, but is most likely a result of butterflies himself.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:33, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::The butterfly effect has never stopped HT before, but I do agree you're right that he's not the prince (as much fun as it once was to presume otherwise; I think at one point I even tried to illustrate this article with The Sun's "Harry the Nazi" cover). Turtle Fan (talk) 20:52, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :Moving him does seem appropriate. He has only one reference. I'm pretty sure Umberto is already in the MFC page. TR (talk) 19:21, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::I've sent the book back already, but I remember there's also a reference to a coin with Henry's image. I can't remember if adjectives were used to describe his face, but if there are that is definitely something to add.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:57, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :I agree with the move. Unfortunately, I have no recollection of the coins so I can't help there. ML4E (talk) 20:36, February 27, 2016 (UTC) ::I'm also fine with the move. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:52, February 27, 2016 (UTC) I just looked up the passage about the coin and there's nothing useful. On page 67 it says the coin had Henry's face in front and the BUF emblem on the back, with no description of his face.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:42, February 28, 2016 (UTC) :Even if there were something, I doubt it would be much help. Thinking of times that HT has given some qualitative description of a face on a coin or bill, it's usually very vague and cursory. :I do remember that, on the $5 bill in TL-191, John Adams looked constipated. There are only two really well-known portraits of Adams that I know of, and if the bill used either of those I can't imagine where Martin came up with that. :And by the way, why hasn't Adams ever had his face on a unit of currency in OTL? He was a giant of the Revolution, he deserves the honor. (Actually when I hear talk of there "needing" to be a woman on a bill, Abigail Adams immediately comes to mind. They should really give her the $20 instead of the $10, but I suspect that, up there in Unitarian Heaven, she'd be equally happy either way; she either displaces her husband's arch-nemesis or her son's.) Turtle Fan (talk) 06:57, February 28, 2016 (UTC)